Abstract
The article analyses how wide and general conclusions are formulated in case law, using a sample of decisions of the Czech Constitutional Court from 1998 and 2018. The article shows tendencies towards institutionalisation of maximalist decision-making in the form of formulating general principles as starting points for decisions made in individual cases.
Another important observation is connected with the changing form of maximalist judicial decisions, shifting from maximalism characterised by depth of the reasoning towards maximalism manifested in the width of impacts of an individual case, whereby the Czech Constitutional Court has been strengthening its position vis-a-vis other branches of government. In the conclusion of the article, it is emphasised that maximalism, in terms of separation of powers, rather represents an anti-systemic element in the laws of countries with civil-law legal system, such as the Czech Republic.